I am Peter Stokes an independent consultant also working as a lead assessor fot QS and TS. Something that I think should be taken up by those seeking registration to TS is this. The rules for assessment are that if the assessment (or surveillance) days equate to 5 or more for a visit, the assessing body MUST use 2 assessors. As most assessing bodies charge for travel this will DOUBLE your travel costs for a 5 day (or more) assessment or surveillance. (QS9000 does not have this rule) At my TS exam I queried this and was told it was for the clients benefit? It is a pain in the arse for the assessment body and the client. We need the freedom to decide how to man the audit by mutual agreement. An Asian client recently cancelled his TS16949 upgrade from QS because he realised that 2 assessors were going to fly in, one from UK and one from Korea at his expense. The travel days were more than the assessment days. Because the business is very specialised there are very few qualified assessors with the correct coding for his business. IS THIS SENSIBLE? The assessing bodies DO NOT query the rules and are not listened too. But the clients SHOULD question these rules and NOW whilst the spec is in its infancy and fighting for acceptance.
I couldn't agree more. We all need to be pro-active interface with the registration bodies. I have in the past and will in the future make my feelings known to these bodies. I have yet to receive anything more that a "thanks for your input" and that was from the RAB.
Can you tell me how to get a copy of the registration requirements? They are not in the back of TS as they are in QS. I have an issue with corporate disagreeing on what our auditor has told me for 7 day reassessment next year to become TS certified. Thanks for your help!
Hello Peter,
I think you know who am I, your old friend from another aprt of world. It is nice to see you here. You can contact me separately via my personal email.
Regarding your input, I could't agree more. I have same feeling that someone there is not listening to the feedback but yet they expect the organization to listen to their customer via customer feedback process, 7.2.3.
Besides your concern, as a user for ISO/TS (I am a consultant, so you may probably know better who am I), I am waitting for the sanctioned interpretation document. This is mainly because I found that, from different certificaiton body which I have spoken to, they are having some different interpretation. According to them, this is partly because the TS lead auditor training and exam did not cover the interpreatation of the requirement (Is it true??). As this training is only offered to CB, anything they say may be the rules.
Linear Mode
